Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[d3x0r]

Get a tub of water.  Fill it 3/4s full.  Let it set for at least an hour so that the water  reaches ambient temperature.  Get a: empty inner tube, air pump of any kind, and good pressure gauge.  Fill the inner tube to a normal pressure reasonably quickly, say less than 1 minute.   Record the pressure.  Place the inner tube in the tub of water and let it set for 15 minutes.  Read the pressure again.

Irrealvent, the pressure required only exists for ... well less than a second in reality but for 1 second.  So... ya even if the temp is lost and therefore pressure goes down, the amount that is transferred from air to water in 1 second is nil.

[MarkE]

the balloon thing wasn't an example, it was a comment...

as for the CO2 cartridge, there is plenty of info available on this. The force required to fill them (+ a little extra to seal it) is give or take 1.6 newtons, Which is exactly what you get back out. its compressed gas, in actuality you gain a little extra because the gas is cooled before it is filled, so you have extra pressure from the ambient heat.

Newtons are units of force, not work.

In either case, it doesn't come anywhere close to the energy gained by the sustained buoyant force over time required to lift the diver 100 feet through ocean water.

Do your math

Please do.  Please show an energy gain by comparing energy values.  We'll see if there is a business making free energy compressing CO2 and plumbing it into submersibles.

[MarkE]

Mark E
You should get another act ,  trying to peddle your way around a context for your comment as it applies to NASA and their research into propulsion drives ...your   garbage in garbage out comment to the engineers at NASA ,makes you sound like some pompous ignoramus
that sweeps all claims with the same broad brush of ignorance and assumption.

But that's what you love to do ... throw insults in the wind from behind the Curtain of alleged anonymity at those who actually do the hard work and research .

as if it really mattered ..to anyone but yourself.
your a legend in your own Mind Mr......

Chet you are a hoot.  You are either too lazy to dig up the quote that you refer to, or you know that it doesn't say what you represent. 

[MarkE]

Mark
I really think that YOU should go and do some reserch your self on a 767's speed capabilities at sea level-start with boeings spec sheets first. Take note of the built in speed limits to avoid things like bird strikes taking out the plane at low altitudes. Also see the calculations on maximum thrust v air density v mass of the plane.. Also try and sepperate cruising altitude speed from sea level speed.

Hey,who knows,maybe the guys that couldnt even fly a cessna that managed to pilot a 757 and 767 beyond there capabilities also worked out how to hack into the planes main frame,and disable all the built in safty limits of the aircraft.

A little graph from boeing on the 767-200-->you should go read up a bit Mark,and get YOUR head out of ya ass. Im not seeing the mach .86 at sea level Mark-->who is on the cool aid?.

LOL, your limit line is at 0.55 Mach.  When did 0.55 Mach at sea level fall significantly below the 220 mph that you claim would tear the plane apart?  0.55 mach is on a typical day at sea level about 420mph.

[PIH123]

There is definitely a light source up there.  The picture isn't clear enough for me to see if that is a camera head or not.

So given that we take evidence as presented, we cannot conclude if it is emergency lighting or light emitted from an infrared camera.
So a plausible explanation as TK said.


Now even without seeing an image taken from that location, I hope you will agree, we have to let that piece of the puzzle go.

Pete